Jump to content

Miscellaneous TTC Discussion & Questions


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, nfitz said:

I don't understand this one. The parking lot always seems full. So has TTC declared it surplus, or are the police jumping to conclusions.

 

There's a big, mostly unused building nearby that might be more useful. The old East York city hall, just up Coxwell.

It turns out this whole thing may be a long a drawn out process. The TPS and local city councillor want to work with City Planning to determine if there can be some kind of hub model where you would see the TTC, TPS, Toronto Public Library and a potential Community Hub operate on site.

We'll have to wait for some kind of TTC report to see whether they want to fully vacate the site, or move some functions to a different location and remain at Danforth Garage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You should have been on that PCC on September 23rd.  That specifically was the breaking point for me for putting up with former garbage. A friend of mine who works for another transit agency and

Cherry on top of today’s events, we lost at technician at Queensway to a heart attack. Unfortunately I don’t know the specifics. 😣

About a decade ago, I attended an open house at the Greenwood subway yard, and acquired a set of datasheets for the Camshaft (H1, H2, and H4) Hawkers, Chopper (H5 and H6) Hawkers, and T1 models of sub

Posted Images

TTC dropped the new 5-year corporate plan and Ridership Growth Strategy in the documents for next week's TTC meeting - http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2018/January_25/Agenda/Agenda.jsp

The highlight would be the new map showing the Toronto Transit Network Plan that council approved in 2016 - http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.EX13.3

Obviously some changes since then, such as Line 6 possibly heading to Pearson, Waterfront Transit probably stopping at Leslie instead of Woodbine, the Sheppard West portion of Line 4 that's in the current draft Regional Transportation Plan, along with an LRT heading up Don Mills from Sheppard (Line 9?).

We already knew about the Line 5, 6, and 7 colours, and that of the Relief Line (Line 3). But here is the pink Line 8 - Jane!

image.thumb.png.60c0a9e035dd93d3611be57d407d9782.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nfitz said:

TTC dropped the new 5-year corporate plan and Ridership Growth Strategy in the documents for next week's TTC meeting - http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2018/January_25/Agenda/Agenda.jsp

 

The highlight would be the new map showing the Toronto Transit Network Plan that council approved in 2016 - http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.EX13.3

Obviously some changes since then, such as Line 6 possibly heading to Pearson, Waterfront Transit probably stopping at Leslie instead of Woodbine, the Sheppard West portion of Line 4 that's in the current draft Regional Transportation Plan, along with an LRT heading up Don Mills from Sheppard (Line 9?).

 

We already knew about the Line 5, 6, and 7 colours, and that of the Relief Line (Line 3). But here is the pink Line 8 - Jane!

 

image.thumb.png.60c0a9e035dd93d3611be57d407d9782.png

Well, I am happy to see more of former Mayor Miller's original Transit City plan resurrected. But what the map doesn't show is in which forms they would be resurrected in - subway or LRT (that might be the case for the *'d lines) - although the distinction with BRT is clear, and something that Toronto riders would definitely benefit from.

P.S. I hope that the TTC adopts driverless technology for the Relief Line. That would be a first for a high-capacity subway line in North America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Transit geek said:

I hope that the TTC adopts driverless technology for the Relief Line. That would be a first for a high-capacity subway line in North America.

I know this is a controversial topic, and I know some will disagree, but I kind of hope they don't remove the drivers altogether. Best to keep people employed IMO. Feels better when there's a living being at the controls, not a computer. Again, my opinion, and I know this tech has been adopted in places around the world, but don't eat me for it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed T. said:

Well, at least the proposed network doesn't include everyone's favourite napkin-and-crayon lines, B-D to Sherway (or Dixie, or Oakville, or St. Thomas, or ....) and Sheppard to Sheppard West.

BD I agree with, but they should really change the Finch West LRT to not serve Finch station, but serve Pearson and extend Line 4-Sheppard West; West side people would really benefit from that huge new hub at Don Mills and it would be easier for people on the East side to get to York University and Yorkdale. Also, that access from North York to Pearson would really alleviate the 401 bottleneck. 

20 hours ago, nfitz said:

TTC dropped the new 5-year corporate plan and Ridership Growth Strategy in the documents for next week's TTC meeting - http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2018/January_25/Agenda/Agenda.jsp

 

The highlight would be the new map showing the Toronto Transit Network Plan that council approved in 2016 - http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.EX13.3

Obviously some changes since then, such as Line 6 possibly heading to Pearson, Waterfront Transit probably stopping at Leslie instead of Woodbine, the Sheppard West portion of Line 4 that's in the current draft Regional Transportation Plan, along with an LRT heading up Don Mills from Sheppard (Line 9?).

 

We already knew about the Line 5, 6, and 7 colours, and that of the Relief Line (Line 3). But here is the pink Line 8 - Jane!

 

image.thumb.png.60c0a9e035dd93d3611be57d407d9782.png

Why don't they have Line 8 serving 407? That to me makes a lot more sense considering the ridership pretty much going to be dead over there. 

Another random idea: What about giving the LRT lines letters, and if we revert to the Scarborough LRT and have it interline with Eglinton east & west, background colours can represent the trunk line of Eglinton, with a letter representing the route? 

 

Side note: they didn't put the name of Science Centre on the map; where lines 3 and 5 meet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, skyfirenet said:

So why spend tens of millions when you can just adjust those routes?

Because it's actually a shorter distance to Hwy 407, it stay's on Jane st, it doesn't require two turns which will inevitably slow it down, it makes better connections to GO routes, and will make something useful of Hwy 407 station. 

Screen Shot 2018-01-21 at 4.15.00 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-01-21 at 4.14.16 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Well, at least the proposed network doesn't include everyone's favourite napkin-and-crayon lines, B-D to Sherway (or Dixie, or Oakville, or St. Thomas, or ....) and Sheppard to Sheppard West.

Only reason I'd want to see Sheppard to Sheppard West is to have an alternate connection between the Yonge side of the YU and Wilson Yard, in the event something happens on the line and the trains are blocked at the start of service.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @Streety McCarface has a point. Most of this discussion I was looking at it wrong, but now come to think of it, it makes some sense. Not only is 407 closer than PV,  but consider what you'd have to do at PV. You would have to build a terminal track, you would have to tunnel deeper, you'd have to build an entire platform for the actual terminus, and on top of that, it is farther than 407. And in the tunnel-boring business, every meter counts. That extra ~140 meters of boring would be costly, and other costs would accompany it. 

Whereas if you look at it if you were to complete Line 8 to 407, you could simply join Line 8 to the existing track of Line 1. The only issue I see with this idea is at 407, where the trains would terminate. What could be done is sharing the platforms, Line 1 to one side and Line 8 to the other etc.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WoodbineSecondExit said:

Boring tunnel is actually very cheap. One of the cheapest parts of subway building in fact.

Okay, sure (I may have misunderstood pricing re boring), but also consider the costs of tracking, signalling and other long term maintenance costs, not to mention the entirely new platforms and terminal tracks you'd have to add to that, when there is an existing stretch that already has what I mentioned a shorter distance away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Archer said:

Only reason I'd want to see Sheppard to Sheppard West is to have an alternate connection between the Yonge side of the YU and Wilson Yard, in the event something happens on the line and the trains are blocked at the start of service.

Is this reasonably feasible without ripping up and redoing the junction at Sheppard-Yonge?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

You ignored every other argument, and we have yet to see the full potential of the station. 

As you wish.

There is zero development potential between Steeles and Highway 407 station. This eliminates any point to the stay on Jane, shorter distance, and left turn positives. That is unless you plan to sell off public parkland and desecrate the dead for your transit idea which you better have a good dental plan if you suggest the idea to the general public. The GO argument is weak at best because you could reroute them to serve Pioneer Creek station and all but one of the GO bus routes terminate at York University anyways. If anything, you've made the argument that the Jane route should turn at Shoreham and serve both subway stops on the York U campus.

38 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

Is this reasonably feasible without ripping up and redoing the junction at Sheppard-Yonge?

So long as no more buildings with deep foundations get built in the Sheppard-Beecroft-Elmhurst-Yonge box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, skyfirenet said:

As you wish.

There is zero development potential between Steeles and Highway 407 station. This eliminates any point to the stay on Jane, shorter distance, and left turn positives. That is unless you plan to sell off public parkland and desecrate the dead for your transit idea which you better have a good dental plan if you suggest the idea to the general public. The GO argument is weak at best because you could reroute them to serve Pioneer Creek station and all but one of the GO bus routes terminate at York University anyways. If anything, you've made the argument that the Jane route should turn at Shoreham and serve both subway stops on the York U campus.

1

Are there even stops planned between Jane and Steeles & Pioneer village? they seem like they'd be close enough given an average walking distance to transit being 800 meters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, skyfirenet said:

So long as no more buildings with deep foundations get built in the Sheppard-Beecroft-Elmhurst-Yonge box.

That doesn't directly answer the question I asked. Is the existing junction adequate for the stated purpose of putting XX trains from Sheppard onto Yonge if necessary--or would it have to be redone?

The existing junction is adequate for the four trainsets that run on Sheppard to enter and leave service. That's a far cry from trying to get even a fraction of Yonge line trainsets into service.

I would assume that "no buildings with deep foundations" would mean that the junction would have to be redone. That would be a big mess, and just more reason for the connection to cost way more than any value it would deliver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

That doesn't directly answer the question I asked. Is the existing junction adequate for the stated purpose of putting XX trains from Sheppard onto Yonge if necessary--or would it have to be redone?

The existing junction is adequate for the four trainsets that run on Sheppard to enter and leave service. That's a far cry from trying to get even a fraction of Yonge line trainsets into service.

I would assume that "no buildings with deep foundations" would mean that the junction would have to be redone. That would be a big mess, and just more reason for the connection to cost way more than any value it would deliver.

The existing trackwork is certainly capable of being used for moves from Sheppard-to-Yonge northbound, and vice-versa. It just isn't ideally designed to allow it to happen on a regular basis.

 

If they were serious and wanted to use it as a regular route, the TTC would likely want to make some changes to the trackwork and build at least one new leg of track to make those moves easier.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, smallspy said:

The existing trackwork is certainly capable of being used for moves from Sheppard-to-Yonge northbound, and vice-versa. It just isn't ideally designed to allow it to happen on a regular basis.

If they were serious and wanted to use it as a regular route, the TTC would likely want to make some changes to the trackwork and build at least one new leg of track to make those moves easier.

It's not that we even need it to be used on a regular basis. Whether the rationale is emergency deployment of trains from Wilson to the Yonge let, or as a helper to get them going in the morning.

The question is what the throughput of the existing junction would be for trains arriving from the west, and switching to the Yonge line. If you can only make five or six moves an hour, I would argue that its usefulness is too limited to contemplate this kind of use.

Upgrading the junction would not only make a huge mess of Sheppard and Yonge, it would also be expensive. I'm not a construction engineer, but "billion dollars" would be what I assume until it's demonstrated otherwise.

TL;DR: if the reason for a connection between Sheppard-Yonge and Sheppard West is to provide access for trains between WIlson yard and the Yonge line, the junction has to be able to have decent throughput, no matter how irregularly this may need to be done. Otherwise, add the cost of redoing the junction to the project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...